Author of the Angylaidd Series featuring Demi-Angel Arwein Angylaidd

Monthly Archives: April 2014

March 30, it’s my husband’s; 4/2 (today), is my daughter’s; and 4/6 is mine. My poor son is 9/7, which makes him feel very special in September and horribly left out this time of year. It’s a wonderful week – all three of us sort of feel like there is no single birthday, and none of us actually have their birthday end until mine is over, or begin later than Brian’s – in other words, it’s all of our birthdays, all week.

It makes most people thoughtful, having a birthday. For me, it makes me thoughtful to watch my husband and daughter have theirs – I only ever feel a bit maudlin about the whole thing, goals not achieved, etc. This year is clearly a little different, but in some ways, it isn’t.

So one renews the goals… relearn the maths that I have forgotten, and the physics, and get the books fit for publication. Get the third, maybe fourth, ones written.

. Physicist Rip Thorne of
Cal Tech writes, “Time travel was once solely the province of science
fiction writers. Serious scientists avoided it like the plague-even when
writing fiction under pseudonyms or reading it in privacy. How times
have changed! One now finds scholarly analyses of time travel in seri­
ous scientific journals, written by eminent theoretical physicists …
Why the change? Because we physicists have realized that the nature
of time is too important an issue to be left solely in the hands of science
fiction writers.”

Very arrogant, isn’t it, having a blog? And, yet, realizing that, I still have one. And am, apparently, typing in it. So there you are.

Never did point this out, but I really ought to – generally, anything posted relates to me and the inner workings of my deranged brain – that is to say, my opinions and no one else’s, and not meant to be taken as that. In cases where I reference the published works of others, I hopefully won’t be so dim as to leave out the reference, but if I do, I heartily apologize. Hopefully, I’ll not make that error… again…. No. Ha, ha.

Wondering, lately, about things that future generations will take as obvious – that are, as yet, completely beyond us. As posted to my FB account…

3/31/2014:

I would posit that not only are there true and constant laws governing the physical (viz mechanical / electromagnetic, etc) world; but that there are near-identical corollaries in most fields. Cognitive science – I imagine that there is something akin to a “cognitive potential energy”, related to the ability to think – to access and use data – or the “size” of the bucket (really, the size of what is *in* the ‘bucket’ + whatever one can readily access to put in the ‘bucket’) and a “cognitive kinetic energy”, related to the *process* of thought. Sociology – Le Chatelier – one cannot stress a human-based system without necessitating an equal diminution of the stress. (3 people in an elevator – add another, and, if they are all strangers, they move a predictable distance apart. If they are *not* all strangers, the stress on the system is different, but requires no change in the law – there is still a response, albeit a different one). I believe that although we currently have no way to quantify many of physical science’s corollaries in other fields – it will, someday, be possible to do so, redefining much of our understanding of what is *science* as we learn to make these definitions. I would *so* love to be there when it happens with cognition… to be able to *quantify* thought is to be able to replicate it. I think.

***

4/1

So, that’s the sort of thing on my mind these days. Interesting, isn’t it, how much information is available on the web, and how little we avail ourselves of it? Entire departmental majors. Gosh, I wish I had the time to learn.

Oh. Wait.

Well. Back to it. Life, writing, physics, religion, philosophy, chemistry, history, psychology, neuroscience… in the end, it’s all one thing, isn’t it? Mom was right. They had it right in the Renaissance and later in the 17th c… these divisions are artificial, purely imposed by humans who are trying to find their way in the world, and, whether correct or not, coming to some fluid agreement that they exist.

For example, base 10. Why did we decide upon that? It could just as easily have been 25, or 52, or 100. I strongly suspect we chose ten because we have ten fingers… and all of math thereafter was built on radial development of five digits.